The APS Forum on Physics and Society has long recognized that Art Rosenfeld fathered the discipline of “enhanced end–use efficiency of energy.” Many of us are proud to call Art one of the very best physicists to improve society. After the oil embargo of 1973–74, Art established the Center for Building Sciences at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, which created energy efficient light bulbs, DOE-2 building analysis, reflecting roofs, clean water using florescent tubes, coolth-of-the-night into heat-of-the-day buildings, the analysis that allowed appliance energy standards to save 75% electricity in refrigerators and great savings in all appliances, and much more. In 2001, the U.S. National Research Council estimated that the US saved $15 billion (1999 USD) from electronic ballasts and $8 billion from low-emissivity windows. The DOE–2 computer tool has saved 22 percent of building energy when compared to not using the tool.

Long ago Henry Kelly realized Art’s greatness by defining an Art as one A/R deltaT (equals heat flow, dQ/dt). Over the years Art was given the APS Szilard and DOE Carnot awards. On April 27, President Bush gave the DOE Fermi Award to Art with the statement “His vision not only underpins national policy but has helped launch an industry in energy efficiency.” This was followed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who proclaimed April 28th as “Arthur Rosenfeld Energy Efficiency Day.” The proclamation had seven whereases, including “Whereas, his work sparked the global energy efficiency movement and reminds Californians to never take our resources for granted.” On April 28, energy luminaries came from near and far to celebrate Art’s 80th birthday. Not to be outdone, the California State Assembly and the Public Utility Commissions also passed resolutions praising Art. A good time was had by all, as the Chairs of the Public Utility Commission and the California Energy Commission lauded Art, who was appointed by Governor Davis and reappointed by Governor Schwarzenegger.

"The program proposed for space and Earth sciences is not robust; it is not properly balanced...and it is neither sustainable nor capable of making adequate progress toward the goals that were recommended in the National Research Council's decadal surveys." - new NRC report, "An Assessment of Balance in NASA's Science Programs"

Based on its current budget request and future funding proposals, NASA's science programs can neither be considered robust nor sustainable, an expert National Research Council panel has concluded. It calls for NASA to "move immediately" to correct the funding imbalances in its small missions and research and analysis programs; to preserve important microgravity, life and physical sciences research needed for long-duration human spaceflight; to better evaluate the costs of current science missions; and to seek input on these issues from the science community through its advisory committees "as soon as possible." It further calls on Congress and the Administration to recognize and address the "mismatch" between NASA's responsibilities and its available resources, and urges that science funds be isolated so that they are not used to make up shortfalls in the human spaceflight program.

The panel's report, released on May 4, finds that at the time the president's space exploration initiative was announced in 2004, NASA's space and Earth science programs "were projected to grow robustly from about $5.5 billion in 2004 to about $7 billion in2008." But, it says, NASA's current plans for those programs "differ markedly from planning assumptions of only 2 years ago. "The FY 2007 request for the Science Mission Directorate is approximately $200 million less than the FY 2004 appropriation, and NASA proposes cutting the directorate's total available funding in the 2007-2011 period by $3.1 billion below what was projected in last year's budget request. Additionally, the report notes that between the FY 2006 projection and the FY 2007 request, some funds that had been designated for the Science Mission and Exploration Systems Mission Directorates were shifted to the Space Operations Mission Directorate "to compensate for the projected shortfall in support for the shuttle and the ISS [International Space Station]programs."

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin testified on Capitol Hill this spring that NASA "cannot afford to do everything that our many constituents" want it to, and that his highest priorities were to keep the shuttle operating while developing a Crew Exploration Vehicle and to complete the space station (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2006/034.html).

FYI,The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy NewsNumber 60: May 10, 2006Audrey T. LeathMedia and Government Relations DivisionThe American Institute of Physicsfyi@aip.orgwww.aip.org/gov(301) 209-3094